Allowed

Dileep Rajput v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2024/2871/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an appeal against the rejection of bail, setting aside the lower court order and granting release on bail with a Rs. 25,000 bond to a appellant charged with enticement and an atrocity against a minor, deeming the victim's statements and lack of injury sufficient to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties of like amount subject to conditions including cooperation with prosecution, no tampering or intimidation of witnesses, and presence

Dileep Rajput Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42327

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2871 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Dileep Rajput Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mukesh Sharma,Sagar Singh,Shri Ram Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sagar Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Tanvi Jain, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶7

This is an appeal under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 29.09.2023, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.7467 of 2023, filed by the applicant for his release in Case Crime No. 0269 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶8

The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 27.06.2023 alleging that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter aged about 15 years.

¶9

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that she knows the applicant for the past six months and she wants to live with him only and to marry him. She categorically stated that the applicant did not do anything forcibly. In her statement recorded before the Magistrate also the victim stated that she used to talk to a boy and when her

¶10

father came to know about it, he gave a complaint against him. She has stated that she has gone with the applicant out of her own freewill and the applicant had not enticed her away and he did not commit any misdeed against her.

¶11

In the medico legal examination report of the victim no mark of injury or sign of use of force was reported.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the appeal it has been stated that the appellant is innocent, he has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶13

The learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and she has submitted that the victim is a minor and her consent has no relevance in the eyes of law.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that in her consistent statement the victim has stated that she loved the applicant and the applicant has not committed any misdeed against her; that the allegation do not indicate that the applicant has committed any offence or that he nurtured any hostility against the victim due to her belonging the scheduled caste; that the appellant has no previous criminal history and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the appellant on bail in the aforesaid crime. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed .

¶15

The order dated order dated 29.09.2023, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.7467 of 2023, filed by the applicant for his release in Case Crime No. 0269 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Chinhat, District

¶16

Lucknow, is hereby set aside.

¶17

Let appellant-Dileep Rajput be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶18

(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶19

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶20

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶21

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶22

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶24

(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶25

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶26

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for

¶27

the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶28

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶29

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶30

Order Date :- 3.6.2024 Ram.

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dileep Rajput v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Rajput v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Thru. Its Company Secy. Lko. and Another Vs Shri Priyavrat Chaturvedi and Another

Lal Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Prakash Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Chand Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Lko and 3 Others

Mateen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Pargat Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.